When a U.S. military strike targeted a semi-submersible vessel in the Caribbean last week, it left two survivors in its wake. Their survival presented the Trump administration with an immediate and complex dilemma. The options were to send the alleged drug traffickers back to their home country or find a legal way to keep them in military detention. This decision forced a confrontation between a bold new military policy and the rigid frameworks of international law.
What is the U.S. Military’s New Mission?
The Trump administration has launched a aggressive new campaign in the Caribbean, described as “a non-international armed conflict” against narco-terrorism. This marks a significant escalation in the war on drugs. The strike last Thursday was unlike any other undertaken since these operations began in early September. Its aim was to destroy the semi-submersible vessel, a type of craft favored by traffickers for its ability to travel mostly underwater and evade visual detection. While two individuals were killed in the attack, two others survived and were rescued by helicopter, eventually being brought onto a U.S. Navy warship.
Why Weren’t They Called “Prisoners of War”?
Despite labeling the campaign an “armed conflict,” the U.S. government notably avoided using the term “prisoners of war” for the two survivors. Legal experts were not surprised by this choice. Simply having evidence of drug trafficking does not create a clear case for long-term military detention under the laws of war. A former Air Force lawyer, Rachel VanLandingham, explained the core problem: “Since there is no actual armed conflict, there is no law of armed conflict authority to hold them regardless what we call them.” A current U.S. military official concurred, stating that arguing for long-term detention in court would have been very difficult.
What Other Options Did the Administration Have?
Beyond simply repatriating the men, the Trump administration did have other, more contentious paths available. It could have attempted to designate them as unlawful combatants and detain them at the Guantanamo Bay facility. Alternatively, it might have attempted to bring charges against them in a criminal court in the United States. But there were political and legal risks associated with both choices. By opting for military detention, the detainees would have been able to challenge their incarceration in a U.S. federal court by claiming habeas corpus. This legal process would have forced the administration to reveal its evidence, which, as one former State Department legal official noted, could have “undermined its narrative about these strikes.”
Also Read: UN Oversight Ends: Iran Enters New Phase as Nuclear Deal Collapses
What is the Political Fallout?
The military strikes have already attracted significant political scrutiny in Washington. Democratic lawmakers, like Congressman Jim Himes, have condemned the operations, stating, “The attacks on the boats in the Caribbean have been illegal. If the survivors had appeared in either court or a military tribunal that would have instantly been made clear.” The administration has provided minimal details about the strikes, including the amount of drugs seized or the identities of those killed. The policy has also sparked an international dispute, with Colombian President Gustavo Petro accusing the U.S. of attacking a fisherman’s vessel, leading to a public war of words with President Trump. Legal experts continue to question the use of the military instead of the Coast Guard for these law enforcement missions.
